RTE Cutbacks The Plan

Duane Dibbley

I think what the Publics expectations of RTE are verses RTE's perception of the Publics expectations seem to be wildly different.

I believe if they actually delivered on the publics expectations they would save alot of money.

Boggles

downtheroad wrote: »

And she mentioned several times that the tv licence is not fit for purpose and that a lot of money is being lost by evasion. She seemed to put the blame anywhere but RTE's door. It's the licence evaders, An Post, the state's fault, anybody but RTE.

How is RTE at fault for evasion?

It's against the law not to have a TV license if you have equipment capable of decoding a signal.

An Post have the lucrative contract to collect it , then government if they are not giving them the required tools.

But essentially if people are not paying their license it's 100% on them.

James Brown

The worked or try to anyway, that everyone needs a TV licence. This is a childish attempt at making RTE the bad guys. They should be honest and make it part of the tax draw. While I like the possibility of avoiding having to pay RTE anything, I think if they get a cut of the tax take the onus will be on the state to address RTE. Currently they are a law unto themselves on tax payer money.
TBF, doesn't work well for any body the government currently manages, but, if they wanted to, as with everything else, they could address it rather than having it fester with money squandered on Montrose royalty.

Tea Shock

MrMusician18 wrote: »

With the moving of Sport from RTE2 to One it looks like they are laying the groundwork for the eventual closure or sale of RTE2.

Brian Dobson put that very question to Dee Forbes this morning. The answer she gave was of such waffley bullcrap, I am in no doubt that they are considering ending RTE 2 in the future (but probably hoping they won't have to)

downtheroad

Boggles wrote: »

How is RTE at fault for evasion?

It's against the law not to have a TV license if you have equipment capable of decoding a signal.

An Post have the lucrative contract to collect it , then government if they are not giving them the required tools.

But essentially if people are not paying their license it's 100% on them.

If there has been a constant % evasion for the past number of years then budget accordingly. Pretty straightforward to budget their tv licence revenue based on the income from the past number of years and then operate within those financial restraints.

Tea Shock

downtheroad wrote: »

If there has been a constant % evasion for the past number of years then budget accordingly. Pretty straightforward to budget their tv licence revenue based on the income from the past number of years and then operate within those financial restraints.

I think their main problem is that income is much lower than it has been in previous years, due to a combination of more choice and the fact that most people rarely watch live TV (and therefore, the ads) anymore.

downtheroad

Tea Shock wrote: »

I think their main problem is that income is much lower than it has been in previous years, due to a combination of more choice and the fact that most people rarely watch live TV (and therefore, the ads) anymore.

Yet they a) squander cash because they think they can go cap in hand to the state and ask for a bail out (fair play to Richard Bruton for saying no earlier this year) and b) don't change their offering to meet what the market is looking for.

For example the RTE player is not currently fit for purpose, yet RTE have likely spent a lot of money on creating the service and revamping it this year yet it still doesn't work as seamlessly as YouTube or Netflix then wonder why people are consuming media on those outlets instead.

end of the road

facehugger99 wrote: »

RTE should consist of 1 radio station, 1 tv station and a web service, all of which are concentrated on providing real public service output.

If people want to watch chat shows, sport, soap operas or reality tv sh1te there are countless options available for them on the commercial networks.

The tv license should cost citizens no more than €50 a year.

RTE is an anachronistic dinosaur who operate financially on the assumption that everyone is still living in 1980's 2-channel land. There is absolutely no need for it in its current form.

you won't provide quality public service output that meets all sorts of tastes with 1 tv channel and 1 radio channel.
can you explain how you came to your figure of 50 euro a year as to how much the license should only cost each of us?

10000maniacs wrote: »

What other countries did with more successful implementations of DAB was allow independents on the platform for free. You see here RTE claim they pay to be on the service, but its license payers money when you think about it. Not earned money.
Its the same with the Digital television platform. RTE are the only ones in HD on Saorview because they charge a huge premium for HD which of course they claim they pay for.
But its also license payers money which the independents don't get.

not in the case of the uk with dab i believe.
in the uk existing stations got license extensions for their existing fm services in exchange for investing in dab.
stations in the uk do pay carriage costs for being on dab as i understand.

osarusan wrote: »

I'd be happy to see a salary cap of say €100,000, and let anybody who wants to leave do so.


I'd guess 95% would remain on reduced terms because nobody else would offer them more than that.


If RTE said to Ray Darcy tomorrow that he can take or leave €100,000 a year, what other options does he actually have? Ireland is a small media pool and I doubt there is any interest in him from other countries.

can you explain the rational for your figure?
if it was possible to do that and not lose those individuals and possibly the commercial revenue they may bring in if any, then i would imavine it would have already been done to be fair.

H3llR4iser

Boggles wrote: »

How is RTE at fault for evasion?

It's against the law not to have a TV license if you have equipment capable of decoding a signal.

An Post have the lucrative contract to collect it , then government if they are not giving them the required tools.

But essentially if people are not paying their license it's 100% on them.

In all fairness, the TV license system is completely outdated in 2019; Even the definition of "capable of decoding a signal" is not fit for purpose anymore: a smartphone can access RTE live, so technically it should be paying the license.

On the other hand a lot of people nowadays, especially under 40 years old, will have a TV for no other reason than the size of the screen, and exclusively use it for Netflix / console gaming or even as a PC monitor. They won't even have an antenna attached to it - in this regards, the law is simply a vexation and it's not hard to see the reason behind why people don't want to pay the license fee. It IS too easy to make people pay for a service they don't use and don't want by hiding behind a "law".

However, it can be done smartly - other countries have done it; In Italy, a country that used to have an ever higher ratio of evasion for the same exact type of license, it's effectively been transformed into a "tax" and added to the electricity bill. What do you know, people are now "happy they don't have to pay the RAI fee" (RAI being the Italian national broadcaster), but they're still paying it in the form of an added charge on their energy...

Oasis1974

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Ryan Tubridy – €495,000
Ray D'Arcy – €450,000
Joe Duffy – €389,988
Sean O’Rourke – €308,964
Marian Finucane – €300,617
Miriam O'Callaghan – €299,000
Claire Byrne – €216,000
Brian Dobson – €198,146
George Hamilton – €186,195
Mary Wilson – €185,679

It really is impossible to justify the salaries these people are getting.

Getting rid of Duffy and D'Arcy alone would save several jobs of ordinary workers.

Marian Finucane is the biggest disgrace for the amount of work she does.

Varta

H3llR4iser wrote: »

In all fairness, the TV license system is completely outdated in 2019; Even the definition of "capable of decoding a signal" is not fit for purpose anymore: a smartphone can access RTE live, so technically it should be paying the license.

On the other hand a lot of people nowadays, especially under 40 years old, will have a TV for no other reason than the size of the screen, and exclusively use it for Netflix / console gaming or even as a PC monitor. They won't even have an antenna attached to it - in this regards, the law is simply a vexation and it's not hard to see the reason behind why people don't want to pay the license fee. It IS too easy to make people pay for a service they don't use and don't want by hiding behind a "law".

However, it can be done smartly - other countries have done it; In Italy, a country that used to have an ever higher ratio of evasion for the same exact type of license, it's effectively been transformed into a "tax" and added to the electricity bill. What do you know, people are now "happy they don't have to pay the RAI fee" (RAI being the Italian national broadcaster), but they're still paying it in the form of an added charge on their energy...

And this number is growing. So why should we give our precious taxes to a TV station that a growing number of the population have no interest in? Just close the dinosaur and move on to the future.

Elmo

Varta wrote: »

And this number is growing. So why should we give our precious taxes to a TV station that a growing number of the population have no interest in? Just close the dinosaur and move on to the future.

I would say to support Irish content, but then there is a whole question over that. I am not talking about News and Current Affairs.

end of the road

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think the point is the 2Fm have many similar offerings in the commercial space that those 880,000 can switch to.
Spending 6-7 million of the licence fee as a subsidy on something like that does not make sense to me.
If it was breaking even, there might be a case for it.

I will miss RTE Gold, but I understand why it is being cut if it's making a loss.

actually, realistically there aren't offerings they could switch to.
while yes there are commercial pop music stations, the fact people are listening to 2fm, would suggest to me at least, that those commercial offerings cannot offer whatever those listeners want and are getting from 2fm, whatever that may be.

Noemi Shapely Weakling wrote: »

Agreed. It's also unfair that commercial radio stations have to compete with a taxpayer-subsidized entity. 2FM should be sold off as a private commercial station and forced to compete on a level playing field with Today FM and all the others. If it can't run profitably when others can, something is wrong.

Numerous RTE offerings don't fall within the remit of "public-service broadcasting." Pop music radio, imported Australian soaps, imported US shows and movies that can easily be watched elsewhere, knock-offs like Dancing with the Stars, and on and on — that's not public-service broadcasting.

RTE could be a very cost-effective public-service operation with one radio station and one TV channel, rather than the bloated behemoth that it became during its monopoly era.

it is absolutely fair that commercial stations should compete with a tax payer subsidized radio station as in theory it should incentivize them to up the quality of their offerings to be better.
as i have stated before, the issue with selling off 2fm is that there probably isn't anything to actually sell. the studios would remain with rte, and absolutely no way, under any circumstance, should a transmission network that could provide something else that does meet the public service remit, be sold off to private interests. the BAI and comreg can sort out frequencies if they think there is demand for another private commercial national radio station.

celtic_oz wrote: »

close the whole thing down, sack everyone

start again the following year with this for a start

1. No one makes more than the Taoiseach, ever, period.
2. Management staff percentage to content creators below industry standard in europe always

so just to be clear.
you want to shut the whole lot down, sack all of the staff, try and start the whole lot up again in a year when perhapse a lot of staff will have moved on, we will then probably end up having to pay more to get those staff back from their new employers, or bring in staff from elsewhere who would be familiar with the workings behind the sceens of a big broadcaster.
forget about the so-called "talent" as there will be other staff who work in the organisation, who cannot so easily be replaced.
not sure why we would waste our time on this disruptive nonsense, when voluntary redundancies and pay cuts are already going to happen and more could happen.

Boggles

H3llR4iser wrote: »

In all fairness, the TV license system is completely outdated in 2019; Even the definition of "capable of decoding a signal" is not fit for purpose anymore: a smartphone can access RTE live, so technically it should be paying the license.

It's been mooted, something I firmly disagree with.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

On the other hand a lot of people nowadays, especially under 40 years old, will have a TV for no other reason than the size of the screen, and exclusively use it for Netflix / console gaming or even as a PC monitor. They won't even have an antenna attached to it - in this regards, the law is simply a vexation and it's not hard to see the reason behind why people don't want to pay the license fee. It IS too easy to make people pay for a service they don't use and don't want by hiding behind a "law".

It doesn't matter, they knew this when they bought the TV. Go buy a large monitor then you will be exempt.

But lets me honest, the majority of people evading license are doing so because they can.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

However, it can be done smartly - other countries have done it; In Italy, a country that used to have an ever higher ratio of evasion for the same exact type of license, it's effectively been transformed into a "tax" and added to the electricity bill. What do you know, people are now "happy they don't have to pay the RAI fee" (RAI being the Italian national broadcaster), but they're still paying it in the form of an added charge on their energy...

Again Dee herself has mooted this.

Something I firmly disagree with as well. Why should another private company be tasked with collecting revenue for a another state agency?

There has to be an option to opt out, when the critical mass of opt outs is reached then there needs to be a rethink.

dulpit

One thing to note re. people saying they shouldn't have to pay for the tv licence because they don't watch RTE, if we only ever paid for services that we personally used what sort of tax system would we have? I don't use much public transport here, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result? I don't currently go to hospital much, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result?

The key thing is that it should just be another tax. It's (in my mind at least) very clear that having public service broadcasting is a very good thing for the country, even if you never personally consume it. As someone previous said, stick a levy on the electricity bill. No evasion possible then.

James Brown

dulpit wrote: »

One thing to note re. people saying they shouldn't have to pay for the tv licence because they don't watch RTE, if we only ever paid for services that we personally used what sort of tax system would we have? I don't use much public transport here, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result? I don't currently go to hospital much, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result?

The key thing is that it should just be another tax. It's (in my mind at least) very clear that having public service broadcasting is a very good thing for the country, even if you never personally consume it. As someone previous said, stick a levy on the electricity bill. No evasion possible then.

For me it's fairness. I do not think RTE is fair in their hiring practices nor in the pay they award people who never had to look up the RTE vacancies and apply for a job in fair competition with members of the public.

end of the road

bobbyss wrote: »

Lots of people lose their jobs every day. We don't hear much about them and their struggles.

job losses do get coverage to be fair, all though big well known organisations will get more coverage, as there is quite likely a lot more interest, then there would be in some random company who many have never heard of.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's a lot of stuff RTE do really well.
Their coverage of the 1916 Anniversary was great. Many of their documentaries are good such as the one about Mick O'Dwyer. Prime Time Investigates, although expensive is good as is Prime Time in general. Also their news and current affairs.
I'd like to see more of the programs such as John Bowman presented years ago interviewing people one on one. I forget the name of it.
TG4 is also excellent.
And Radio 1 is passable, particularly their documentaries.
RTE2 just about holds its own, mainly for sports coverage.

There is no justification for having both Lyric FM and/or 2FM. Maybe they could combine the two into one station and make it into a generic music station, which covers all genres: classical, alternative, pop, jazz, etc. There just isn't the audience there for Lyric as a standalone, and both it and 2FM are hugely loss making and are unlikely ever to break even. Cut costs for commercial reasons while also covering the public service remit. Its not that difficult a concept.

lyric meets the ps remit as it is . it probably should go back to what it was originally but the fact it has a small audience and is loss making is irrelevant given it is a public service and is not there to be a commercial entity.
so there is plenty of justification for it being on.

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

I think what the Publics expectations of RTE are verses RTE's perception of the Publics expectations seem to be wildly different.

I believe if they actually delivered on the publics expectations they would save alot of money.

the problem is the public's expectations differ from person to person.
what one person may like someone else doesn't, there is no one homogenous expectation from what i can see.

Varta wrote: »

And this number is growing. So why should we give our precious taxes to a TV station that a growing number of the population have no interest in? Just close the dinosaur and move on to the future.

move on to the future? can you explain what this future is that you want us to move on to?
the problem is, there is the general future which will bring all sorts we don't even know about yet, and then there is the personal future, where one has certain wants and expectations of what they would like to happen.

Mezzotint

I think though there are two fundamental things that the state needs to bear in mind:

1. The fundamentally important thing is public service broadcasting or at least having independent, public service programme making. That’s probably more important than ever in an era where traditional media is breaking down due to the inevitable disruption by rapidly advancing technology. There is a huge role in making sure that we have seriously good quality content being produced and that there’s robust independence.

2. Public service broadcasting doesn’t mean protecting a bloated organization that is still largely operating on a model from 1961. There’s an assumption that everything RTE does is PSB and that clearly is not the case.

It would be incredibly shortsighted to throw away the positive aspects of what RTE can do but it would be equally myopic to just let things tumble on to what will be inevitable failure in years to come.

We need a complete rethink about what RTE is and what it’s achieving and why it’s structured as it. This needs a big vision and a big discussion. It shouldn’t be about just bashing RTE nor should it be about just being totally loyal to a failing business model. Take the useful bits forward and ditch the aspects that are dragging it down

It is an important cultural institution and it has a future, if it doesn’t get bogged down in a mid 20th century structural and technology paradigm that doesn’t exist anymore.

Varta

dulpit wrote: »

One thing to note re. people saying they shouldn't have to pay for the tv licence because they don't watch RTE, if we only ever paid for services that we personally used what sort of tax system would we have? I don't use much public transport here, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result? I don't currently go to hospital much, so should I get a discount on my tax as a result?

The key thing is that it should just be another tax. It's (in my mind at least) very clear that having public service broadcasting is a very good thing for the country, even if you never personally consume it. As someone previous said, stick a levy on the electricity bill. No evasion possible then.

The bit in bold is the important bit. Comparing a TV station to public transport or a hospital is utter nonsense.

oholly121

Howitzer the 5th wrote: »

The near one million they spunk on Tubridy and D'arcy is long debated with no sane justification or rationale from any quarters.

Tubridy benefits from family member Todd Andrews elevation to RTÉ authority in the 1960's which is where one can trace his ultimate and undeserved status as chieftain of Montrose.

D'arcy's immeasurable fifth rate qualities are barely worthy of regional hospital radio. His is RTÉ's profound mystery.

Sean O'Rourke is due to retire. Joe Duffy cannot be too far from retirement or some useful selfless act. The late great Gay Byrne's great legacy tarnished somewhat by the irritating omnipresence of Joe f*king Duffy.

Claire Byrne is their best card. Challenging and earnest. Overpaid but increasingly building a worthy name.

Miriam Marian Dobbo et al and the gratuitous waste of money all reflective of years of inadequate indecision at government and RTÉ management level.

Claire Byrne is their best card. Challenging and earnest. Overpaid but increasingly building a worthy name.

No im sorry I lost all faith in her and her bias show last Tuesday when she pulled that stunt with Justin Barret by playing one of his speaches in borrisokane and not giving him the oportunity to come on live and defend his position

And then to top it all of she had a nice laid out group of bias audence members who just slated the whole town of borrisokane

Now im in no means a NP supporter but I do believe in free speach and I do firmly believe that Mr Barret shoudl have been given room to defend himself

Im afriad the Claire Byrne's show is as bias and self serving and agenda filled as everything else in RTE

Loafing Oaf

H3llR4iser wrote: »

However, it can be done smartly - other countries have done it; In Italy, a country that used to have an ever higher ratio of evasion for the same exact type of license, it's effectively been transformed into a "tax" and added to the electricity bill. What do you know, people are now "happy they don't have to pay the RAI fee" (RAI being the Italian national broadcaster), but they're still paying it in the form of an added charge on their energy...

Bit strange that they're content with that if it's still a separate charge they can see added on to their electricity bills. Not sure that would quash grumbling about the licence in Ireland, reckon you'd need to incorporate it in to direct taxation.

nkl12xtw5goz70

dulpit wrote: »

It's (in my mind at least) very clear that having public service broadcasting is a very good thing for the country, even if you never personally consume it.

Do you think it's possible to have public-service broadcasting without a bloated organization that burns through €340 million a year?

James Brown

Old dated info, however one year RTE, with tax payer money, out bid TV3 for the rights to show Desperate Housewives.
RTE should not be spending piles of money to get a foreign show people can just as easily watch elsewhere, like when they aired Eastenders and Coronation Street, home and away etc. Complete waste.

Kivaro

oholly121 wrote: »

Claire Byrne is their best card. Challenging and earnest. Overpaid but increasingly building a worthy name.

No im sorry I lost all faith in her and her bias show last Tuesday when she pulled that stunt with Justin Barret by playing one of his speaches in borrisokane and not giving him the oportunity to come on live and defend his position

And then to top it all of she had a nice laid out group of bias audence members who just slated the whole town of borrisokane

Now im in no means a NP supporter but I do believe in free speach and I do firmly believe that Mr Barret shoudl have been given room to defend himself

Im afriad the Claire Byrne's show is as bias and self serving and agenda filled as everything else in RTE

If one was to look up the dictionary to search for "partial reporting", a picture of Claire Byrne would pop up. She has repeatedly demonstrated the bias and liberal agenda of the RTE hierarchy by being one of the most vocal advocates for ultra-liberal asylum/migrant policies.
Her audience and "experts" are rigged to suit this agenda and many cast doubts on the validity of the polls she uses on her "show".
Claire Byrne is awful and without any sense of integrity in either her professional or private life.

Loafing Oaf

Kivaro wrote: »

Claire Byrne is awful and without any sense of integrity in her private life.

And people say debate on social media invariably descends into the gutter...

MrMusician18

Kivaro wrote: »

If one was to look up the dictionary to search for "partial reporting", a picture of Claire Byrne would pop up. She has repeatedly demonstrated the bias and liberal agenda of the RTE hierarchy by being one of the most vocal advocates for ultra-liberal asylum/migrant policies.
Her audience and "experts" are rigged to suit this agenda and many cast doubts on the validity of the polls she uses on her "show".
Claire Byrne is awful and without any sense of integrity in either her professional or private life.

But harsh, care to elaborate? Can't see how her private life matters?

Raconteuse

Well a friend of mine with young children won't lose his job which I'm glad of.

bobbyss

Deleted User wrote:

PBH was doing really well on Liveline until it became very obvious that his leash was reigned in.

Yes indeed.
Does it really matter to people who presents Lifeline, just as an example. Whether it's PBH or Joe or Katy and so on. It doesn't really matter to me. PBH could do as good a job as Joe. So why pay Joe so much? How much is enough? For example, I think 100.000 is more than adequate to present Lifeline. You do have to have certain skills but 100, 000 is fine.
What proof is there that Joe brings in more revenue than someone else? Marian Finnucane. How much does she work a week? For that salary? Those whose jobs are threatened must feel aggrieved at the high earners.

Boggles

Kivaro wrote: »

If one was to look up the dictionary to search for "partial reporting", a picture of Claire Byrne would pop up. She has repeatedly demonstrated the bias and liberal agenda of the RTE hierarchy by being one of the most vocal advocates for ultra-liberal asylum/migrant policies.
Her audience and "experts" are rigged to suit this agenda and many cast doubts on the validity of the polls she uses on her "show".
Claire Byrne is awful and without any sense of integrity in either her professional or private life.

I don't think I have ever seen a post from this guy that doesn't bring up migrants.

It must be fúcking exhausting.

Idbatterim

It rte wasn’t such a failure , we’d live in a better country ! Do they ever stand up for the taxpayer? Do they invite councilors in and grill them on being The prime culprit of the housing crisis ?

No just get Margaret cash etc on and instead of asking her some hard questions , they just ask why the state hasn’t given her a 4eva home ... in ballsbridge... with 17 bedrooms ... on an acre at least ( for the horses ) should have approached Sean Dunne about selling Walford !